Would you find it offensive if a Protestant minister gave a talk called "Strange Creeds of Mormonism"?

That's a weak analogy. A protestant minister would have to give a speech that is much broader than "Mormonism," say "The Strange Creeds of Restorationism." Because Richards's talk was not "The Strange Creeds of [a particular denomination]."

Why is it okay to mock the beliefs of those who believe in Christian creeds?

That's a weak analogy. A protestant minister would have to give a speech that is much broader than "Mormonism," say "The Strange Creeds of Restorationism." Because Richards's talk was not "The Strange Creeds of [a particular denomination]."

DJ wrote:

And now we meet Denial's close sibling, Avoid.

You're not making things better; you're making things worse. According to you, Elder Richards is demeaning an entire religion, not just one particular branch of it. Which is a valid point, actually.

There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.

Quote:

So, again: if it is acceptable for LeGrand Richards to find fault with the strange creeds of traditional Christianity, then why is it not acceptable for a Protestant minister to demean the strange creeds of the Mormon movement?

Again, if LeGrand Richards were attacking a particular denomination, your analogy might hold up. As it stands, it is a bad argument.

Just a side note: did you actually read Richards's talk?

Quote:

Jeffrey R. Holland is pointing out how the traditional beliefs about God in Christianity make no sense. Why is it not acceptable, then, for a Protestant minister to give a sermon about how the Mormon idea of God makes no sense?

Because "Mormon" is a term commonly used to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, there are others who call themselves "Mormon," but, as Hinckley says, there is only one. If Jeffery R. Holland pointed out how the beliefs about God in [a particular denomination] don't make sense, your analogy might hold up.

Quote:

No, asking loaded questions for which you have several quotes already mined to counter the predicted answer.

Quote:

Let's summarize what you just admitted:

1. Your responses are predictable.2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.

What I "admitted" was that you love to search LDS.org and FAIR for quotations which support your position, then craft carefully loaded questions in an attempt to trap LDS members.

I think it is acceptable for Mormons and their leaders to criticize other religious groups. They've been doing it since the 1820s, why should they stop now? They just need to grow thicker skin and realize that just as they are free to criticize others, others are free to criticize them. Mormonism should not get special protection.

_________________"There's no reason for this." - Andrew Jackson

"If you are a racist, I will attack you with the North" - Abraham Lincoln

That's a weak analogy. A protestant minister would have to give a speech that is much broader than "Mormonism," say "The Strange Creeds of Restorationism." Because Richards's talk was not "The Strange Creeds of [a particular denomination]."

And now we meet Denial's close sibling, Avoid.

You're not making things better; you're making things worse. According to you, Elder Richards is demeaning an entire religion, not just one particular branch of it. Which is a valid point, actually.

Are you being serious that your response to a post where I explained that Gordon B. Hinckley was wrong on this specific point about "Mormonism" is to reiterate that Gordon B. Hinckley said something that I already demonstrated to be wrong?

Quote:

Quote:

So, again: if it is acceptable for LeGrand Richards to find fault with the strange creeds of traditional Christianity, then why is it not acceptable for a Protestant minister to demean the strange creeds of the Mormon movement?

Again, if LeGrand Richards were attacking a particular denomination, your analogy might hold up. As it stands, it is a bad argument.

Just a side note: did you actually read Richards's talk?

I'm sorry, Simon, but at this point I must conclude that your consistent avoidance of the issue shows that you do have a double standard about criticizing someone's cherished beliefs.

And yes, unlike internet defenders of the faith, I do read what the Church and its leaders teaches. That's how going to apologists---formal or informal---for answers on my questions about the Church led what was left of my faith to collapse under its own weight. Defending the Church by ignoring and/or contradicting its teachings does not make a compelling case for, "The Church is true!"

Since your calling this a bad analogy decidedly ignores that when Elder Richards criticizes traditional Christian creeds, he is necessarily criticizing denominations that believe in those creeds, this is merely further proof of how "the moral voice of the board" believes that morality regarding criticism of someone's cherished beliefs is a one-way street.

Quote:

Quote:

Jeffrey R. Holland is pointing out how the traditional beliefs about God in Christianity make no sense. Why is it not acceptable, then, for a Protestant minister to give a sermon about how the Mormon idea of God makes no sense?

Because "Mormon" is a term commonly used to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, there are others who call themselves "Mormon," but, as Hinckley says, there is only one. If Jeffery R. Holland pointed out how the beliefs about God in [a particular denomination] don't make sense, your analogy might hold up.

The unsupported assertion of a lifetime professional cheerleader for the Church (Hinckley) is incorrect. I have shown that to be the case, and you are simply relying on one of the only three things that you have to offer: argument by repetition (the other being argument by assertion and parroting on whatever FAIR says).

Quote:

Quote:

Let's summarize what you just admitted:

1. Your responses are predictable.2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.

What I "admitted" was that you love to search LDS.org and FAIR for quotations which support your position, then craft carefully loaded questions in an attempt to trap LDS members.

In other words,

1. Your responses are predictable.2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.

I mean the Hinckley who is among the same group of leaders of the Church that you continually quote from when they support your position. It is amusing that, when they do not support your position, you write them off as "oh, he was a liar because he said something that wasn't entirely true on 60 minutes."

Quote:

I'm sorry, Simon, but at this point I must conclude that your consistent avoidance of the issue shows that you do have a double standard about criticizing someone's cherished beliefs.

Not true... Jeffery R. Holland's talk, for example, was more about defending our beliefs than criticizing traditional Christianity. I was there for that particular talk, and I remember it well. There was not a tone of mocking or belittling, but one of more clearly defining where we stand and where our critics are incorrect.

Quote:

And yes, unlike internet defenders of the faith, I do read what the Church and its leaders teaches.

Why, Darth J? Why do you read what the leaders of a Church you have forsaken say?

Quote:

Since your calling this a bad analogy decidedly ignores that when Elder Richards criticizes traditional Christian creeds, he is necessarily criticizing denominations that believe in those creeds, this is merely further proof of how "the moral voice of the board" believes that morality regarding criticism of someone's cherished beliefs is a one-way street.

Richards's talk was not mean spirited or mocking, either. It is your cynicism that makes it so.

Quote:

The unsupported assertion of a lifetime professional cheerleader for the Church (Hinckley) is incorrect.

Except when it supports your position, right?

Quote:

In other words,

1. Your responses are predictable.2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.

No. In other words:

Your "gotcha" game is predictable.LDS teachings, although you would like them to remain static, are continually revealed.

Not true... Jeffery R. Holland's talk, for example, was more about defending our beliefs than criticizing traditional Christianity. I was there for that particular talk, and I remember it well. There was not a tone of mocking or belittling, but one of more clearly defining where we stand and where our critics are incorrect.

Turn around, Simon, 180 degrees. Then you'll see.

Your statement above is doubly true by the critics here at MormonDiscussions.com. We're defending the rational, not criticizing those Mormons that continue to eschew it. The tone here by critics is one more clearly defining our WYSIWYG and where Mormons are incorrect.

_________________It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, ... that Negroes...are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.LDS First Presidency, 8/17/1949

The tone here by critics is one more clearly defining our WYSIWYG and where Mormons are incorrect.

Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them.

Much more reliable than ascribing self-induced emotions as confirmation from god of a bias

_________________It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, ... that Negroes...are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.LDS First Presidency, 8/17/1949

I mean the Hinckley who is among the same group of leaders of the Church that you continually quote from when they support your position. It is amusing that, when they do not support your position, you write them off as "oh, he was a liar because he said something that wasn't entirely true on 60 minutes."

I quote from LDS leaders to show what they are teaching. That does not mean that I agree with what is being taught, nor would that inference be made by a a person at or above the intellectual functioning of reading books without sounding out the words.

Simon, perhaps there's another LDS discussion board somewhere where it's mostly junior high kids who are posting. They might be impressed with what you pass off as reasoning.

Might.

P.S. "oh, he was a liar because he said something that wasn't entirely true on 60 minutes."

Chapter 31: Honesty," Gospel PrinciplesWhen we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

But I don't know that we teach that. I don't know that we emphasize that.

Quote:

Quote:

I'm sorry, Simon, but at this point I must conclude that your consistent avoidance of the issue shows that you do have a double standard about criticizing someone's cherished beliefs.

Not true... Jeffery R. Holland's talk, for example, was more about defending our beliefs than criticizing traditional Christianity. I was there for that particular talk, and I remember it well. There was not a tone of mocking or belittling, but one of more clearly defining where we stand and where our critics are incorrect.

is more about defending traditional Christian beliefs than criticizing Mormonism. There is not a tone of mocking or belittling, but one of more clearly defining where traditional Christians stand and where Mormons are incorrect.

I am glad that Simon Belmont has no problem with a person of another faith defending his beliefs by contrasting those beliefs with false ones, and by summarizing the historical evolution of a religion's theology to show why it is heretical.

Quote:

Quote:

And yes, unlike internet defenders of the faith, I do read what the Church and its leaders teaches.

Why, Darth J? Why do you read what the leaders of a Church you have forsaken say?

You have said before that you sometimes enjoy going to mass in the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Why do you participate in a church that arose from the Great Apostasy teaching the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture?

Quote:

Quote:

Since your calling this a bad analogy decidedly ignores that when Elder Richards criticizes traditional Christian creeds, he is necessarily criticizing denominations that believe in those creeds, this is merely further proof of how "the moral voice of the board" believes that morality regarding criticism of someone's cherished beliefs is a one-way street.

Richards's talk was not mean spirited or mocking, either. It is your cynicism that makes it so.

Let's test that. I'm going to take a passage from LeGrand Richard's talk, then turn it around on LDS beliefs. I am sure you will then agree that it would be perfectly fine for a Protestant minister to say it.

Elder Richards:

I would like to mention one other thing that I think is a creed that is “an abomination in the sight of God,” and I shall mention it but briefly. At the time that Joseph Smith had that marvelous vision and saw that glorified Christ, he saw the same Jesus that came out of the tomb. He was the same one who appeared unto his apostles and had them feel the prints in his hands and the wound in his side. He was the same one who ascended into heaven in the presence of five hundred of the brethren at that time. This same Jesus appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith when the whole Christian world was worshiping an essence.

There is not time to go into a lot of detail, but their catechism says that their god has “no body; he has no parts; he has no passions.” That means that he has no eyes; he cannot see. He has no ears; he cannot hear your prayers. He has no voice; he cannot speak a word to the prophets. Some of them even say “he sits on the top of a topless throne.” How absurd! To me it seems that their description of the god that they believe in is about the best description of nothing that can be written.

Hypothetical Protestant minister:

"I would like to mention one other thing that I think is a creed that is “an abomination in the sight of God,” and I shall mention it but briefly. At the time that Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God and Jesus--when he finally decided on what his official story about this experience would be--he told people that God has a physical body. That means that God is not above all things. He is not above space and time, he is subject to them because he is limited to the physical universe. Such a god is not omnipotent. While the Christian world was teaching belief in an omnipotent God, Joseph Smith taught his followers to believe in a created, limited god who is not Deity in any real Christian sense.

There is not time to go into a lot of detail, but their Doctrine and Covenants says that their god has a physical body like a man's, but perfected. That means he has a digestive system; does he need to eat? He a lymphatic system; does he get sick? He has a brain; can he fit omniscience into a human brain? Some of them even say lives on a planet orbiting a star called Kolob. How absurd! To me it seems that their description of the god that they believe in is about the best description of a pagan god that can be written."

This is not hate speech. At least, that's the response I would expect from the fair-minded and intellectually honest Simon Belmont.

Quote:

Quote:

The unsupported assertion of a lifetime professional cheerleader for the Church (Hinckley) is incorrect.

Except when it supports your position, right?

Let's learn how to address questions of fact, the Simon Belmont Way!

And just for fun, we're going to flagrantly disregard Godwin's law showing how you, too, can learn how to argue facts just like Simon!

1. Let's say you're on a message board discussing, I don't know, different systems of government.2. Simon Belmont gets on and makes numerous sweeping assertions about what National Socialism was all about during the Third Reich.3. Another poster disputes Simon Belmont's assertions about the policies and philosophy of the Nazi regime. In order to show that Simon Belmont is mistaken, this poster refers to actual statements by Hitler, Himmler, and other leaders in the Third Reich.4. Simon Belmont accuses that person of quote mining. 5. The poster points out that "quote mining" means taking things out of context to misrepresent what someone said.6. Simon Belmont again accuses that person of quote mining.7. Simon Belmont then provides a statement from Nazi leadership explaining the basis for the Final Solution.8. The poster whom Simon is addressing explains why the assumptions and beliefs about race and ethnicity underlying the Final Solution are incorrect.9. Simon Belmont retorts, "Oh, so you only like Nazis when they support your position!"

Quote:

Quote:

In other words,

1. Your responses are predictable.2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.

No. In other words:

Your "gotcha" game is predictable.LDS teachings, although you would like them to remain static, are continually revealed.

Brother Lund's source for this information? The records in the Church Historian's office. Brother Lund also explains that the idea that the Church knowingly ordained a black man to the priesthood is mistaken, because Elijah Abel "was 'one-eighth Negro and light of color.' Nevertheless, he did have Negro blood and was therefore not eligible for the Priesthood."

There is Not really any evidence to support the assertion that Elijah Abel was just 'one-eighth' of African descent. There is Not anything on his Wikipedia Web Page that indicates that he was just 'one-eighth' of African descent. And there is Not anyhing on this Web Site Page that indicates that Elijah Abel was just 'one-eighth' of African descent. I do Not believe that Elijah Abel was just 'one-eighth' of African descent.

Brother Lund's source for this information? The records in the Church Historian's office. Brother Lund also explains that the idea that the Church knowingly ordained a black man to the priesthood is mistaken, because Elijah Abel "was 'one-eighth Negro and light of color.' Nevertheless, he did have Negro blood and was therefore not eligible for the Priesthood."

There is Not really any evidence to support the assertion that Elijah Abel was just 'one-eighth' of African descent. There is Not anything on his Wikipedia Web Page that indicates that he was just 'one-eighth' of African descent. And there is Not anyhing on this Web Site Page that indicates that Elijah Abel was just 'one-eighth' of African descent. I do Not believe that Elijah Abel was just 'one-eighth' of African descent.

Tell it to Lund and other defenders of the Church from that time. I'm not asserting this to be a fact; I am just relating the arguments used to justify the priesthood ban that revisionist Mormons have decided nobody ever said.